Jb Pushing For Repealing 8 Hour Rule

[AAviator]

I seem to remember SW pilots taking at crack at the 8 hr rule years ago. Does anyone have the history of their attempt? (If my memory is correct)

 

[Boeingguy]

I don't think it was the 8 hour rule, but there was some talk years ago about changing the 30/7 to 32 in 7. There was no real strong effort at it, just a proposal at one time many years ago.

 

[AKAAB]

Once again, this has been covered extensively in a prior thread.

Exemption Thread - JBLU

Read the thread and you'll find the pertinent information to quell your fears. Don't read the thread and you can continue to speculate and get yourself all lathered up.

Cheers!
AKAAB

 

[Fubijaakr]

I would be careful about asking for exemptions to FARs. Once one airline gets it, its "Me, too!" from other managers.

I would be especially careful about asking for an exemption without contractual backup. You don't have that at JBLU.

Its an old saw, but a good one:

"Be careful what you wish for...You might get it!"

 

[michael707767]

I have always thought that on an individual day, we should be more concerned with duty time that with flight time. Flight time is very taxing on the body, and the affect is cumulative, so I would say stick with the 30/7 rule. But on an individual day I would be more concerned with duty time. What would be more tiring, an out and back from JFK to SFO, totalling about 9 hours of flight time and maybe 11 hours on duty, or a six leg day with 8 hours of flight time and 13 hours on duty. Personally I would much rather fly the out and back.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Under tightly restricted duty time rules, I don't think an exemption to the 8 flight hour rule would be necessarily unsafe.

Extending the flight hour rule to 10 hours under the restrictions that the duty time in that case be no more than 13 hours and no more than 2 legs, I think it would be perfectly safe. This is especially true with state-of-the-art aircraft like the A320 with a quiet cockpit. (Noise is a large factor in fatigue.)

I would certainly rather fly JFK-LGB-JFK round-trip than fly some of the duty days I have top put up with at USAirways, like 5:45 flight time with 4 legs and 13:56 duty time. Sitting around airports waiting to work really does fatigue you mentally.

 

[luv2fly]

Extending the flight hour rule to 10 hours under the restrictions that the duty time in that case be no more than 13 hours and no more than 2 legs, I think it would be perfectly safe. This is especially true with state-of-the-art aircraft like the A320 with a quiet cockpit. (Noise is a large factor in fatigue.)

So if we don't fly a state-of-the-art aircraft with a quiet cockpit, what then?
I don't think we should start bending rules just to accomodate one airline. You start scheduling 10 hour days and it will turn in 11 or 12 after delays.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Yes, I think cockpit noise levels should definitely be considered in any ruling concerning duty time and fatigue. It's about time that the FAA start using scientific research when it makes these rulings rather than economic needs of the carrier, or other such factors which are extraneous to the real subject of safety.

Delays are always a factor to consider and they are a fact of life no matter if the rules change or not. I would still rather take only two legs in my duty day with the possibility there of only two delays, rather than a similar on duty time with four or five legs and four or five delays.